In recent weeks, Conde Nast, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, Vox Media and other news outlets have made significant reductions in their workforces. Popular Science, a storied science and technology magazine that has won many awards, has ceased its print edition.

To ensure continued printing, other publications such as BusinessWeek and The Nation reduced production and have become monthly magazines.

Overall, many media companies have shed thousands of employees in recent weeks amid what many used to consider “the most wonderful time of the year.”

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas has reported that many news outlets have cut nearly 2,700 jobs this year, the highest number of job cuts in the industry since 2020, the turbulent year that saw the whole world thrown into chaos by the global Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. (Related: Recession fears surge as new job creation slows down, jobless claims rise.)

Challenger, Gray & Christmas data also revealed in the “news” subcategory the firm tracks, at least 2,681 jobs have been cut, including those in broadcast, digital and print. That total exceeded the 1,808 cuts announced during 2022 and 1,511 announced the year before.

Many major media companies have announced efforts to trim staff and reduce costs to survive a tough advertising market and general news fatigue by consumers.

For example, the Washington Post aims to cut at least 240 jobs from its newsroom before the end of the year. Companies like Conde Nast and Vox have also implemented or announced major staff reductions.

Economy is resilient, but terminations are the norm for publishers

Even though the U.S. economy has been resilient, the unwelcome job cuts come during a rather challenging business climate for publishers, which have continued to see significant declines in social media traffic, which used to be the lifeblood of digital media publications, along with a very demanding advertising market and changing audience habits.

The cuts also come at an unfortunate period, especially given the state of the information environment and alleged threats to U.S. democracy.

The Left claims that at a time when anti-democratic candidates are trying to seize power in election contests throughout the country, newsrooms are seeing their reach and staffing shrink, if not go belly up entirely. According to Left, this lack of accountability implies that the dishonest figures seeking higher office will face less scrutiny and leave the electorate less informed.

Margaret Sullivan, a columnist at the Guardian who previously wrote about media for the Washington Post and the New York Times, said she was concerned about the bigger consequences the job losses in the news business will have on the country.

Sullivan said the loss of journalists “contributes to the exponential growth of news deserts in large swaths of the nation — and that’s disastrous when misinformation is rampant.” She concluded that democracy requires “an informed electorate in order to function and that is tragically dwindling in many regions.”

Visit MarketCrash.news for similar stories about job losses in other industries. Watch the video below to learn about job loss due to automation.

This video is from the AMPNews channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• ESPN to commence LAYOFFS as part of larger Disney job cuts.
• UK’s Guardian newspaper apologizes for its links to SLAVERY.
• SupPRESSed: Kansas cops raid newspaper office and publisher’s home, seize gadgets and records.

Sources include:

• TheHill.com
• ChallengerGray.com
• Brighteon.com

Image by Esther Vargas via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED.

Ateba, the subject of the Post’s piece and a reporter for Today News Africa, has frequently accused Jean-Pierre of deliberately not calling on him during White House press briefings since she assumed the position from Jen Psaki in May 2022. Ateba is a consistent challenger of White House narratives, and often engages in arguments with Jean-Pierre when she ignores his questions or does not call on him during briefings.

The Post’s headline reads “Simon Ateba, the reporter making himself the story at the White House,” while the body of the article calls into question Ateba’s motivations for engaging in conflict with White House press officials, trivializing Ateba’s journalistic interests and portraying him as an attention-seeker.

“[I]t’s not really clear what questions Ateba has been seeking to ask,” the article reads. “His serial interruptions typically begin and end with a protest about how the press secretary hasn’t allowed him to ask his question.”

Ateba’s journalism frequently focuses on White House press officials. For instance, in April 2022, Ateba asked then-press secretary Jen Psaki whether Biden blamed her for his low poll numbers.

Ateba directly challenged White House’s vague answers to questions regarding the origins of COVID-19 in November 2022, and he criticized the Biden administration’s “rigged” press conferences when he alleged that Biden’s staffers only call upon a list of previously-vetted reporters for questions during live briefings that same month.

Simon Ateba Dives Into Conflict With Jean-Pierre https://t.co/O5Ct0BYGth

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 31, 2022

Ateba also accused the White House of intentionally scrubbing footage from a June 27 White House briefing in which he scrapped with Jean-Pierre. The White House blamed a technical glitch for the loss of the exchange from the official recording, which was later fully restored, according to Fox News.

After admonishing Ateba’s behavior, the Post article describes a White House rule proposal pertaining to professional conduct of journalists who attend White House briefings.

“[The rule proposal] said those in violation of the proposed standard would be warned at first, followed by revocation for repeat offenses,” The Post wrote.

This proposed set of rules, the Post asserted, could give the Biden White House the mechanism it needs to legally bar Ateba from briefings. Such an expulsion would stand in contrast to the Trump administration’s expulsions of unruly reporters, such as Brian Karem and CNN’s Jim Acosta, the Post asserted.

“Courts quickly restored (Karem’s and Acosta’s) access, ruling that the White House lacked any formal standards or process for barring credentialed journalists,” the Post noted of the two reporters who consistently challenged the Trump administration’s preferred narratives.

Ateba told The Post that his efforts to cover the White House “have been met with racism and discrimination from the Left, as well as misleading articles that fail to address the underlying story of discrimination against me.”

The Washington Post did not respond immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

They’ve finally published a story about Russian influence in the 2016 election that didn’t make the front page. In fact, you’d have a hard time finding it on their website if you weren’t looking for it specifically. This is because it highlights a recent study that shows Russia’s “massive” digital influence in the 2016 election didn’t really do anything at all.

The article, titled “Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters,” paints a picture that goes against every Russian collusion narrative the leftist outlet has ever published. According to the article:

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.

“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”

They could have ended the article there and moved on. Instead, it behooved them to spend the rest of the unnecessarily long article talking about how this doesn’t prove they were wrong the past six years. They even made a list of all the reasons the study itself is probably inaccurate. Seriously. The next line in their article is even printed in bold to make sure their readers don’t think this study is conclusive (which it is):

But the study doesn’t go so far as to say that Russia had no influence on people who voted for President Donald Trump.

Sometimes I’m embarrassed to be operating in the same arena as a “news” outlet like the Washington Post.